A HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE 



Of all the struggles against mediaeval monoply, that waged against the 

 monopoly of milling was one of the bitterest. The landlords were deter- 

 mined to push their advantage and make the tenants' extremity their oppor- 

 tunity. The demand for increased milling facilities due to the increase of 

 population was very great, and had raised a demand for the expenditure of 

 capital on new mills which only landowners could satisfy. New mills were 

 built whose interest clashed with those of the more ancient ones, and between 

 the rival claimants the tenants were much harassed. A clear instance of this 

 is afforded by the suit of 1544-5, where the farmer of the king's mills of 

 Burnley and Padiham is bringing a case against one Lawrence Townley, who 

 had built a rival mill in Pendle Forest to meet' the convenience of the king's 

 tenants in the said forest, who had ' latterly increased and multiplied ' in 

 number. These tenants had long been 'troubled' by the carrying of their 

 corn to the mills of Padiham and Burnley, and Townley obtained a commis- 

 sion to inquire ' how many of them desired a new mill.' A grant to build 

 such a mill was given him, and thereupon custom was naturally taken from 

 the mills leased to the king's farmer at Burnley, who brought a suit against 

 Townley.-"' 



In many other places there were like disputes. In Philip and Mary's 

 reign we find the farmer of the mills at Low Furness and Dalton enforcing 

 his right to grind the corn and grain of the tenants of that lordship, which 

 tenants had ground at other mills because the farmer had not enough water 

 to grind in due time."^ That there was a deficiency of mills is clear, and the 

 outcry for more facilities is a distinct proof of the growth of population 

 induced by the settled order of the Tudor rule. Some action, however, was 

 necessary both to appease popular discontent, and to insure the prosperity of 

 the lessees to whom the royal mills were rented, and who appear throughout 

 the period to have been contending against the local claim to grind where 

 they pleased or were best served. 



In order to provide sufficient facilities for grinding the tenants' corn the 

 queen ordered a commission to view the state of the royal mills at Lancaster 

 (Lune Mill) and elsewhere.'"' Other mills were put into repair about this 

 time."* In 1561 the farmer of a water-mill at Bradford, near Manchester, 

 was suing the inhabitants of Manchester for multure and tolls at four water- 

 millx'^"' In 1566 the lessee of Henry VIII claimed suit and service from the 

 tenants of Ightenhill Manor at the queen's water-mill, of which he was the 

 farmer, whereas the tenants claimed their right to grind elsewhere, at the 

 mills of Padiham, Burnley, or Hapton.'" Similarly the farmer of two mills 

 on Ormskirk Manor Waste was litigating against the inhabitants of Ormskirk, 

 who claimed the right to grind at divers mills in the neighbourhood.^"' The 

 feoffees of the free school at Manchester claimed soke and suit from the in- 

 habitants of Manchester for their three water-mills there, formerly belonging 

 to Lord La Warre.'"^ The rent of these mills provided for the maintenance 



"' Duchy of Lane. Plead, xv, T. 7. 



™ Ibid. Dep. kii, R. 3. This question of the Furness miUs recurs more than once ; see ibid Ixxx 

 S. 4 ; and Ixxxi, R. 3. ' 



"' Duchy of Lane. Dep. Ixv, R. 3 (1 Mary). 



*" Ibid. Ixix, Chatburn, Sladeburn, Grindleton, Bradford (3 & 4. Phil and Marvl 



- Ibid. Plead. 1, R. . 2. - Ibid. Ixix, R. 5. ^'' 



„ , , ^''''^•',^'''^' S- '9- The divers mills were Creetby Mill, Our Lady's Mills, Cross Hall Mill, and 

 '^^•'-^'''•^"- -^J''^- ^ Ibid. Ixxxi, B. 7. 



294 



